dpgSingularity Posted: September 21, 20162016-09-21T02:01:40+10:00 2016-09-21T02:01:40+10:00In: ExamplesIn 1924 two British runners, one a determined Jew, the other a devout Christian, race against each other for Olympic gold.Chariots of Fire (1981) ShareFacebook6 ReviewsVotedOldestRecentdpg 105 Loglines 5,560 Reviews 558 Best Reviews 112,192 Points View Profile dpg Singularity 2016-09-21T02:15:41+10:00Added an answer on September 21, 2016 at 2:15 am I realize the story is framed around the character of the English Jew, Harold Abrahams. The movie begins and ends with his funeral in 1978.If one insists on assigning the tag of “protagonist” to a character, then I suppose ?Abrahams gets the tag. ?But the devout Scot, Eric Liddell, is not your stock antagonist; he’s more of a rival than an opponent and a virtuous one at that.So it seems to me that the story is really about dual and dueling protagonists, contrasting and competing rivals for the same objective goal.Abrahams?is the conflicted character, driven by resentment over the prejudice he must overcome. ?So driven that he’s willing to break the Inviolate Rule of that era that Olympic athletes were to train as amateurs without professional coaching.Liddell, is his mirror opposite, driven by religious passion and unwilling to break his Inviolate Rule of never running on Sunday. Even if he must defy his sovereign, Prince Edward, and forfeit his chance for Olympic glory.The nucleus of the story is their rivalry. ?For different reasons, they are racing for the same McGuffin, Olympic gold and glory. and it looks to be zero sum contest where ?there can only be one winner.Until…0 Share ShareShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on WhatsApp [Deleted User] 2016-09-21T03:59:05+10:00Added an answer on September 21, 2016 at 3:59 am Not a fan of this movie but I won’t get into that, as for the logline I think it doesn’t reflect the actual movie more than a sequence. The whole movie isn’t just them racing so what is the conflict that drives the other 90 minutes or so? Hope this helps.0 Share ShareShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on WhatsAppdpg 105 Loglines 5,560 Reviews 558 Best Reviews 112,192 Points View Profile dpg Singularity 2016-09-21T04:33:52+10:00Added an answer on September 21, 2016 at 4:33 am >>>what is the conflict that drives the other 90 minutes or soThere can be many conflicts in a story — ought to be. ?But there is one primary conflict driving the plot ?and in “Chariots of Fire” it’s their rivalry, to wit, “racing against each other” per the logline. ?All the other conflicts arise from their goal to be the fastest runner culminating in ?the grand prize, Olympic gold.Even though the film is (less or more) framed around Harold Abraham, it was Eric Liddell’s refusal to run on Sunday that hooked producer David Puttman’s interest, got him to hire ?Colin Welland ?research and write a script. ?And I daresay, Liddell’s refusal to compromise his conscience, was and remains the compelling story hook for many fans of the movie.0 Share ShareShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on WhatsAppdpg 105 Loglines 5,560 Reviews 558 Best Reviews 112,192 Points View Profile dpg Singularity 2016-09-21T22:48:01+10:00Added an answer on September 21, 2016 at 10:48 pm BTW: ?for those who obsess about the structure of plotting and writing loglines (like yours truly), this logline ?does not have the conventional inciting incident.Because neither does the film! ?Not in the first Act. ?Not in the sense of any event that dramatically changes the status quo of the 2 characters, that directly triggers the engagement of their rivalry. The first 1/2 of Act One focuses exclusively on Harold Abraham’s story line in 1919. ?The second 1/2 of Act One focuses exclusively on Eric Liddell’s story line in 1920.The two story lines don’t intersect until the beginning of Act 2 — after 30 minutes of screen time — when, ?in June, 1923 ?Abraham travels 300 miles to Scotland to watch Liddell run.[On a Saturday — the Jewish Sabbath, no less. ?On June 2, specifically as shown in a quick shot of a poster advertising the meet. In contrast, during the Olympic games, Liddell is at church on the Christian Sabbath, not in the stands watching races.]Anyway, this gets my nomination as the inciting incident. ?Abrahams realizes how formidable a rival Liddell is. He translates his ambition to be the fastest runner into articulating a specific objective goal — to win in the ?upcoming 1924 Olympics. ?He tries to engage the services of a professional trainer, ?Sam Mussabimi, to help him beat Liddell and achieve his objective goal.Only then is the plot, the rivalry between the two runners, ?formally and fully set in motion.And while Abrahams eventually achieves his primary objective goal of winning Olympic gold, he never achieves his subsidiary goal of ?defeating Liddell.0 Share ShareShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on WhatsAppNeer Shelter 23 Loglines 2,805 Reviews 258 Best Reviews 55,447 Points View Profile Nir Shelter Singularity 2016-09-25T10:56:10+10:00Added an answer on September 25, 2016 at 10:56 am Wish I was able to chime in earlier on this thread…DPG from memory we never reached an overwhelming consensus on this one.I think you’re over looking, for some?reason,?Abraham’s?grand obstacle to achieving Olympic gold – his obstacle is not Liddell, it’s the Americans and namely Schultz. Even Liddell acknowledges?that the Americans are faster and better trained than he is.The Americans are painted from very early on as the outright biggest threat to the English athletes winning gold, and are defined as the fastest men in the world. Abraham’s must beat them in order to take their place, and he must take their place in order to win gold.What motivates Abrahams to hire Sam is the fact that the americans are professionally trained -?without Sam?he will never gain enough of an advantage to beat them.Liddell’s story is really just the B plot in the film, sure it intersected with the A plot – Abraham’s story, but only to spur him on with a more immediate obstacle that’s closer to home. I’m not diminishing the importance of Liddell’s story in the film – it does take up a lot of screen time, but if you were to remove Liddell’s story the film still works when telling only Abraham’s story. More so, as you agreed with above, Abrahams has the most significant character arc of all in the film – he is the one who goes on a journey to become a better person.No doubt this is an unconventionally structured film – it shifts dramatic points of view and lacks a clear inciting incident. However, it does (as Karel mentioned above) follow the hero’s journey very closely, and employs clear metaphors for character progression and sequence transitions. Abrahams the hero/protagonist clearly states his goal at the end of act one he also specifies how he will achieve it, at this point in the film he clearly crosses a threshold and marches bravely off into the distance.While an argument can be made that there was no specific inciting incident, it can also be argued that the writer clearly indicated when act one ends and act two begins. It was Abrahams who ended act one, and he who stated the goal and action that will be pursued throughout the film.0 Share ShareShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on WhatsAppdpg 105 Loglines 5,560 Reviews 558 Best Reviews 112,192 Points View Profile dpg Singularity 2016-09-25T11:52:46+10:00Added an answer on September 25, 2016 at 11:52 am Nir:Good points, as usual. ?So what’s the logline with Abrahams in the role of the (singular) protagonist?Of course, Abrahams has to defeat the Americans to win a gold medal. ?But the rivalry between Abrahams and Liddell is given far more screen time than that between Abrahams and Sholz.And Abrahams and Liddell were supposed to run against each other again in Paris in the 100 meter trials. ?But when Liddell refused to run on Sunday, that showdown never occurred. ? Abrahams never got a chance to prove himself the faster man, head-to-head against Liddell. ?So the story sets up the prospect of a ?re-match — and then…I agree that the story is framed around Abrahams. ?And why it had to be: ?1]His story thread has a “B” story, a love interest. 2] Abrahams life provides satisfactory closure. ?Liddell died in an internment camp in China at the close of WW 2. ?Abrahams doesn’t die until 1978 .Logically I agree with you that Abrahams carries the “A” story. ?But emotionally, I ?feel that Liddell carries the “C” story, the spiritual theme. ?And I would argue that the “C” story, Liddell’s character and positive? motivation sold more tickets than Abraham’s negative motivation — the chip he carries on his shoulder — against anti-Semitic slights. ?And accounts for the movie’s enduring appeal.(As real as the anti-Semitism was that Abrahams endures in the film, it’s ?subtle and not an obstacle; ?at the start of the film, he was gained entry into a premiere portal of privilege and power — Cambridge University — and there is never any serious threat to his being cast out because he’s a Jew.)Anyway, ?I think the most important question on which we may diverge is: ?are there times where we can — we must — depart from the standard formula for a logline? ?The primary purpose of a logline is to market the script, get people interested in reading it. ?That purpose must determine the method.Most of the time, 95%+, the standard logline formula ?is?the right method. ?But there are exceptions. ?And I think this may be one. ?If you can come up with a standard logline with Abrahams taking the spotlight that has an equivalent hook, great. ?But I can’t think of one.And in my private rule book, ?if I have to choose between a logline with a great hook and one that is correctly formulated, I’ll opt for the one with the great hook. ?Every time.Best of all, of course, is a standard logline with a great hook. ?(Easier said than done.)fwiw0 Share ShareShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on WhatsAppYou must login to add an answer. Username or email* Password* Remember Me! Forgot Password?